ONLY TWO weeks remain before the completion of the first phase of the peace procedure agreed by the two sides in New York. This is when Greece and Turkey will enter the fray, taking over the negotiating process, in an attempt to find compromise solutions to issues that President Papadopoulos and Rauf Denktash had failed to resolve in the four-and-a-half weeks they had been meeting.
The way things are looking after two-and-a-half weeks of slow-moving and unproductive negotiations, the representatives of Greece and Turkey will have a lot of ground to cover during the quadripartite talks if Kofi Annan’s arbitration is to be avoided.
Despite the high expectations about the structured procedure and tight time-frames imposed by Annan, the talks in progress in Nicosia appear no different from those held in the past. Denktash has reverted to type, submitting multi-page documents aimed at re-writing the entire Annan plan — he is still insisting on separate sovereignty, two ethnically pure zones and other partitionist fancies. He has turned the meetings into a forum for the exchange of documents with very little negotiation going on, and made it very clear in his public statements that he remains as opposed to the Annan plan as he always has been.
But, thanks to the procedure he had agreed to under pressure, in New York he cannot cause the collapse of the talks or walk out because of deadlock — filibustering is the only option left open to him, until Turkey and Greece step in.
The technical committees, in contrast, have been working constructively, particularly the committee on economic issues, which has resolved several issues. The only concern of the technocrats is that the time they have is not enough for the huge volume of work that needs to be completed over the next month. Yet it is significant that there is progress in certain aspects of the peace process.
Even more significant is the fact that the UN has decided to look at the economic aspects of a settlement more seriously. The setting up of a committee for economic matters, at the suggestion of Papadopoulos, was an inspired move as the economic consequences of a settlement have become the main issue of concern among the Greek Cypriots. Very little is being discussed at present, other than the forecasted high cost of a settlement, which has become the pre-occupation of people who are wondering whether the economy can actually afford the re-unification of the island.
Those who had drafted the Annan plan were so concerned with the constitutional aspects and security arrangements that they did not devote enough time to studying how the solution would be financed or how the economy would cope. These issues are being addressed now. The committee on economics has been looking at ways of ensuring the smooth functioning of the economy, with both sides working constructively, while the UN has brought in two experts to give advice on how best to organise the property compensation system. These are welcome developments, indicating that the UN mediators have recognised the importance of a healthy economy as the foundations on which a lasting solution can be built.
Unfortunately, the genuine expressions of concern, from different individuals, about the possible negative consequences on the economy of specific provisions of the plan are being cynically exploited by the opponents of a solution. The anti-solution camp have been painting a bleak picture of what lies ahead by distorting figures, citing information out of context, exaggerating cost forecasts and playing up the fact that the Greek Cypriots would be subsidising the Turkish Cypriots. These methods have proved very successful, as people are genuinely concerned about maintaining their standard of living, which is already being battered by the effects of EU harmonisation.
The different studies produced about the cost of re-unification have not allayed these fears. On the contrary, they have caused confusion and uncertainty, nobody knowing which one to believe; they have proved helpful only to the opponents of a solution, who have been using them to rally support against the plan. This why it is essential for the UN to come up with answers to people’s concerns, or put forward proposals that would ease the burden on the economy. We know that there is not much time left, but it would be preferable if most of it was devoted to the economic aspects of a settlement than the constitutional and security arrangements which, in effect, have been resolved for everyone except Denktash. He can be left to rant about separate sovereignty and submit new documents.
But for Alvaro de Soto’s team, the economic aspects (the cost of the running of the new states, rationalising the compensation system etc) should now be given priority. A positive outcome to the referendum could depend on the UN convincing people about the economic viability of the settlement.
